@regthefronkeyfarmer – “Science does not care about the “truth” of the outcome of its investigations. It is only concerned with the validity of the idea,”

– surely the “validity of the idea” is how true it is. Science is surely about finding out the highest possible quality information about how the world works.

“Truth and love” is very different from just truth. Since love only applies to living beings, the implication is that we are seeking truth about life, and how to make it better. Like you say, science doesn’t care about implications, it just produces information.

Jake, before I reply, I need to know whether you evaluate evidence or ignore it.

I will explain. Neil deGrasse Tyson opens the first chapter of his book “Astrophysics for People in a Hurry” with:

In the beginning, nearly 14 billion years ago, all the space and all the matter and all the energy of the known universe was contained in a volume less than one trillionth the size of the period that ends this sentence.

Tom i am not among those duped by scientific religion which is cosmology conjecture requiring imposition of properties or something assumed to exist to make it so. In fact when it was first announced i shouted from the roof top to all who would listen that the bangers would be replaced not in the way the einstein replaced newton but a complete defenestration. Acceding to pressure real and imagined i removed self from roof top before ending in a padded cell as one with temerity to oppose the hand.

Thanks, Jake. At least you and I here on AZ see the Big Bang as a Big Fraud. Of course, with NASA’s budget anyone could publicize anything until many see it as true.

Have you seen Edwin Hubble’s words that point out the unsupported conclusion by a person who, IMO, deserves to remain unknown?

“If the red shifts are a Doppler shift . . . the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young.

“On the other hand, if red shifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely in both space and time.

“Scientific religion” is trying to dupe us? So Jake can I assume you have evidence to show a competing theory is being suppressed by the “scientific religious”? An example would be denial from publication of a sound research paper. There will always be politics when allocating funds for research, but active suppression of ideas is not acceptable. Throughout history there were those who were suppressed, jailed, tortured and even murdered in their quest for truth; usually because they were making progress that went against the scriptures. You have made a claim here and before I believe you, as always I need to evaluate the evidence.

Robert, mine is not to offer a competing theory, one which has been supressed, or any theory at all. I would look before i leap cuz this big bang is far from lets say gravity or evolution. Not that it is relevant but i do recall reading about a competing theory that was bangless perhaps five years ago and it required fewer “indulgences” than the present theory does. I think the guy was chinese, beyond that i dont recall the particulars.

I am making an analogy that is not on all fours. Where it coincides is in the use of mythology that is unsubstantiated and stretches credulity. Further it creates an importance for the “mythmakers” that adds to their reputation as being in the know.

There are a lot of mysteries that science can never solve. But the way I see it, “normal” science guides us forward. Controversial science is a mixed bag and you cannot generalize it all as “good” or “bad” but I think if you want to be fair you have to look at each controversial scientific experiment on a one-on-one basis and decide if any of the information in that particular study is useful in any way or has merit. That’s really in my mind the only way to handle that one.

That’s true, @belen. But so much is cutting-edge or undecided. What I do is look for multiple sources that compete, and see what shakes down from all that competition. Also, multiple viewpoints. Then, see how the results line up with reality.

Anyway, I think NASA and mainstream science has a pretty good track record these days. You say you don’t like the research driven by big-banger interests, but can you suggest any research more tantalizingly wished for by EUers?